Remix.run Logo
AlexandrB 16 hours ago

Would be funny if the "great filter" is not nukes or some other weapon, but social media.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

ben_w 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've read that short story, but can't remember enough details to search for it.

Humans do find alien radio signals, but they keep going dark after a brief window; the narrator suspects why, because they witness fellow humans disappearing into simulations far more fun than reality could ever be.

TheEaterOfSouls 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Not quite the same concept, but The Machine Stops by E. M. Forster (published in 1909, but still pretty relevant imo) is about where this all might lead, with humans living in almost total isolation and only communicating through "the machine", which mostly sounds like modern social media lol. It's terrifying. Also really demonstrates how static human nature actually is.

Nasrudith 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The Great Filter is just bullshit until we come across space ruins to prove that something has been filtering out civilizations. It is possible that we are just the "precursors" without any giants to stand upon the shoulders of.

Catastrophazing new media hasn't gone out of fashion yet. Remember when it was Reality TV that was supposed to be the downfall of civilizations?

jjkaczor 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Remember when it was Reality TV that was supposed to be the downfall of civilizations?"

The jury is still out on that one... failed "business" person who was also a "reality TV star" - and now appears to be in some level of dementia - currently in charge of the single biggest military-industrial complex on the planet...

ben_w 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The absence is the evidence.

Being a precursor is not inconsistent with great filters, a great filter is why nobody else is there to be one.

Great filter is anywhere at all in the progress of life from pre-life chemistry to stable interplanetary expansion; filters behind us, for example multicellular life or having dry land so we can invent fire, are still potential great filters and they would leave no space ruins to find.

That said, my assumption is lots of little filters that add up. Eleven filters behind us each with 10% pass rates is enough to make us the peak of civilisation in this galaxy; eleven more between us and Kardashev III would make the universe seem empty.

15 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
tw04 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Remember when it was Reality TV that was supposed to be the downfall of civilizations?

I’d say we’ve already got measurable statistics. When half of genz isn’t dating or married, it’s signaling trouble.

https://aibm.org/commentary/gen-zs-romance-gap-why-nearly-ha...

Now, we can discuss if that’s good or bad for the planet, but it’s not great for humanity.

XorNot 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes I'm sure reality TV did it and not cost of living meaning they have little money for entertainment and definitely will never purchase their own home.

tw04 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, college aged men who aren’t in a relationship are avoiding pursuing one because they’re thinking about whether or not they’ll be able to afford a house some day. It definitely has nothing to do with social media and dating apps breaking human interaction.

nandomrumber 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is there any evidence that the fall in birth rates is caused by humans having produced reality TV shows?

I’d say there is better evidence to suggest the fall in birth rates is predominantly caused by telling women they should prioritise education and career over children, and enabling the invention of the single mother who survives on government largesse. Separating church and state appears to be contributing at least to some extent.

Single mothers, and women having their first child in their late 20’s or 30’s, appear to be maladaptive.

tw04 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> predominantly caused by telling women they should prioritise education and career over children

Who is “telling them that”? Society by allowing them to open a checking account? Women’s suffrage? The reality is that other than the most privileged, a modern family can’t afford to function without both parents working. I assume you’re for raising the minimum wage to allow a family to run on a single income with multiple children? Or your solution is to send us back to the dark ages and remove womens rights?

> enabling the invention of the single mother who survives on government largesse.

There’s literally nobody who has kids as a single mother with the goal of raising them on welfare, that might be the single most ridiculous statement in this thread.

> Separating church and state appears to be contributing at least to some extent.

The Russian Orthodox Church is government sponsored. How’s their birth rate going?

singpolyma3 14 hours ago | parent [-]

It's definitely not true that both parents need to work. I know many families where only one parent has an income, and it is a very low income (one works as a mover for example) and they manage to eat and live etc.

Do they live upper middle class on this income? No. But they do live and have multiple children.

tw04 8 hours ago | parent [-]

And I can guarantee they’re on government assistance because I know what a “mover” makes, and I know what diapers and formula cost, and they aren’t paying for multiple children on that salary alone.

singpolyma3 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

I can promise you they are not. One of the families in question doesn't even get their tax credits because they are too far behind on filing. It's just the mover income. They have to make it work and since they must, they do

They don't buy formula obviously and they cloth diaper with used stuff from marketplace. To cover the two examples you gave

amanaplanacanal 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Caused by allowing women the same choices that men have. Would you rather they not have the choice?

coldtea 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Is there any evidence that the fall in birth rates is caused by humans having produced reality TV shows?

No, but there's is evidence that the fall in birth rates is affected by all the content slop people spend their times consuming instead of talking to one another and fucking one another... and the ideas that slop puts into their heads are even worse...

intended 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why not choose GDP? Or meat consumption? You could choose any pair of correlated variables.

Using “The invention of the single mother” is a poor way of explaining away Bad Marriages and relationships.

Also, there was a UN report which came out that showed that a major factor behind people choosing not to have children, globally, is money.

brabel 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Money has been shown convincingly to not be an important factor. Please read about it for a while and you will quickly see that it’s a discredited argument, not least because poor people everywhere have always had more children. Also, fertility rates are falling everywhere, especially in countries that are becoming wealthier.

toss1 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe think for a second from the perspective of a couple or woman who WANT to have children. The problems they face in today's economy where both people need to work full-time just to survive are huge, and it seems even crazier to add the time and money costs of a child, let alone several.

The way to change all of that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with economic and labor policy

Society decided it was OK to have the top 1% control 27% or all wealth and the top 10% control 60%, and allow companies to pay wages so low that a person working full-time cannot even get out of poverty, so 25%+ of the workers at the largest employer qualify for food benefits (and the employer even gives employees seminars how to get benefits), while the leaders/owners of those companies rake in more billions every year.

Society decided it was OK to make sure health care is expensive, incomplete, and bankrupting for any unexpected event.

Society decided it was the mothers who are responsible for all childcare and provide only minimum assistance for critical needs like prenatal care, and day-care.

You want more babies? Make just a few changes

Change requirements so corporations are required to compensate their employees merely the way the original US minimum wage was specified (including in the 1956 Republican Party Platform): So a single person working full-time will earn enough to support a household of four including housing (mortgage/rent), food, healthcare, and education. Recognize that the companies trying to exploit their workers by paying less so their full-time employees need govt benefits to feed themselves are the ones exploiting welfare, and do not have a viable business model, they have an exploitation model.

Add making healthcare sufficient and affordable for all, including children and support for daycare and the time and effort to raise children.

Change those things, and instead of a couple looking at making an already hugely insecure future even more insecure by having children, they would see an opportunity to confidently embark on building a family without feeling like one misfortune or layoff could put them all in the street.

SoftTalker 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do you have a citation that the US federal minimium wage ever had the objective that "a single person working full-time will earn enough to support a household of four" because I can't find it in the Wikipedia entry[1] or other top level search results. I also don't see this idea in the 1956 Republican Party platform[2]. At best from reading a few other sources it looks like at its peak in the late 1960s it would have been enough to keep a family of three above the poverty line (though that hardly implies they could afford a mortgage and higher education).

  [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage_in_the_United_States
  [2] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1956
Nursie 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> a single person working full-time will earn enough to support a household of four including housing (mortgage/rent), food, healthcare, and education.

Here’s the problem - some people will still make the choice to have ‘get ahead’ by having both partners work. They will then use their relatively greater economic power to get better housing and more stuff. So others will join them, and they will bid up housing (because it’s the most important thing) until we’re back to where we started and even those who don’t want to do that now have to.

It’s a sorta tragedy of the commons situation.

The only real solution there is for governments to look at social housing, and also to try to produce A glut of house building.

Because until we have one or the other (or both) people will just keep bidding up accomodation to the edge of what’s affordable on two incomes.

KPGv2 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I’d say there is better evidence to suggest the fall in birth rates is predominantly caused by telling women they should prioritise education and career over children

I'd say the evidence is inconclusive and could just as easily be explained by not telling men they needed to take on their share of the burden at home now that their women were no longer trapped at home doing unpaid, manual labor all day.

Instead, we're letting people say "gay sex includes giving a woman an orgasm instead of a pregnancy" (an actual thing I've heard a right-wing influencer say right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH6uydPCX8Q ) and encouraging men to be more selfish and anti-woman.

Also who cares about a fall in birth rates? We need a fall in birth rates. Above replacement rate is mathematically unstable in the long term.

When people complain bout "a fall in birth rates," they're a mix of capitalists who need their profits to ever increase, and white supremacists who mean WHITE people need to have more babies because society is too BROWN now.

We're about to have hella unemployment from too many people for too few jobs. We need fewer people.

mlrtime an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Your post, youtube link and quote is quite ironic given the title of this thread.

You link to a youtube podcast of kids stating things as if they are facts, its just a podcast. I've never heard these things actually said anywhere. It means nothing.

Then your quote is taken out of context and a new culture war is created, well done.

seba_dos1 25 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

It's interesting how common the theme of "a man being into women is gay" is among the right-wing circles, though usually it's hidden in the subtext and not just spelled out in clear like this.

coldtea 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Catastrophazing new media hasn't gone out of fashion yet. Remember when it was Reality TV that was supposed to be the downfall of civilizations?

And it was. We're now even further down in that downfall, and most content is "reality TV" style now: influencers, parasocial relationships, IG, TikTok, OF, news vlogs and podcasts that are about the anchor an not the content, and so on...

throwaway94275 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One could argue modern social media like Tiktok and Snapchat is an evolution of reality TV, in app/smartphone form.

walterbell 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Any real-world side effects of Reality TV?

ben_w 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Arguably the election of Trump.